Does DNR know what they are doing ?

[Big Dave2]

I would have to believe that they know what they are doing a lot more than anyone on this HSOforum.

[mrklean]

I would have to believe that they know what they are doing a lot more than anyone on this HSOforum.

That's the first time im going to agree with you in a long time

[picksbigwagon]

That's the first time im going to agree with you in a long time

Me too, I have a college degree and a master's degree but I have no idea how to manage a 3 miilion head herd of deer, covering a vast quantity of land, with 500,000 "customers" all wanting a 12 pt. buck tied up under their tree stand, 10 feet from the parking lot

[96trigger]

C'mon Picks, 10ft, I'd walk at least 100 yards for a 12 pointer.

[Tinkhamtown]

Most of them do but some of them don’t.

[nobody05]

Like anyother goverment funded program. It's all about money, no matter if it's wrong or right .

[SmellEsox]

Here's a good article that shows how tough of a job it is:

Tony Dean Outdoors

Articles

So You Want to be a Biologist

Editor Note - I wrote this piece several years ago and received tremendous response on it, nearly all of it favorable and most from working biologists)

By Tony Dean

Most of the letters I receive from young people ask how they can become professional fishermen and get their own TV show. But I get a surprising number of letters from youngsters who want a career in fish and wildlife management.

No more thankless job exists. I can think of lots of reasons why any kid tempted to enter the field should be discouraged. There's a lot of competition for a few jobs that pay poorly, and almost everyone knows how to do them better.

A career resource manager begins as an idealist who is forced to quickly become a realist. The reality is made up of constituency groups that react to resource decisions only on how it affects them, and the realization that all of the reasons you chose this field for a career, don't apply.

Fisheries managers don't spend as much time working with fish as they do with interest groups. Wildlife managers spend little time working with wildlife. Most of their time involves trying to figure out new ways to get the same old things done because the old ways don't work and only rarely enjoy political support.

Earning opportunities are limited. Almost every occupation pays more. Schoolteachers, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, carpenters and postal workers all earn a better living. With pay scales so low, it's hard to understand why there's a waiting list for the rare job opening in this field. I know young people holding Masters degrees, working as park attendants just so they're there when an opening occurs.

Opportunities for advancement are almost nil. Figure it out. There are only 50 state directors, and just a handful of division directors within each state. Even fewer opportunities exist within the federal government and fewer yet in non-profit conservation organizations. Moreover, if you're lucky enough to land one of the top administrator jobs, consider that the average tenure of a fish and wildlife administrator in America is about 18 months. And in that period of time, any director who does his or her job will have made enough enemies to last a lifetime. So, why do so many young people go to a fish and wildlife science school to study to enter a profession that offers low pay, little security and lots of frustration? Probably for the same reason that a junior high kid who stands 6-feet tall at age 14 thinks he's the next Kevin Garnett.

Of all those I know working for state or federal resource agencies or for private conservation groups, only a handful actually work out in the field actually managing fish or wildlife. Students who want such a career would be better prepared for reality by studying political science, personnel management or computer science. Especially computer science…because almost every fish or wildlife management plan today is based on a computer model.

This is no field for someone with thin skin. Everyone knows how to do the job better. That includes outdoor writers, all fishing or hunting license buyers, resort operators, baitshop owners, fishing and hunting guides, Chambers of Commerce, tourism associations, and everyone in the business community. It goes without saying that farmers, ranchers and the organizations that represent them know more about managing fish and wildlife, too. And, none of the above are shy about telling fish and wildlife managers that they are inept.

Yet, no group knows more than elected officials, especially state legislators, some of whom, upon receiving a majority of the vote, believe that have also been anointed with wisdom. This trait isn't limited to state lawmakers. County commissioners, Governors, Senators, Congressmen and even Presidents assume that wisdom was bestowed on a majority vote.

Fish & wildlife management is recognized as a science, but almost no one considers it as such. If you've ever wondered why so few decisions seem to be based on sound science, observe how they are reached. Interest groups, and sometimes even elected officials, see to it that decisions are based on emotion, gut feelings, or political whims. And not surprisingly, fish and wildlife managers often fall into that trap by holding public meetings. Sometimes, I believe, fish and wildlife would be better served if managers operated in a dictatorial way, ignoring the politics and public. Operating within the system and actually accomplishing goals does not come easy.

Consider these examples.

In South Dakota, when record runoff filled Lake Oahe in 1997 and the reservoir lost nearly all of its smelt population as current sucked them through the power turbines and emergency spillway, biologists immediately recognized there would be serious repercussions. So, the fisheries staff conducted meticulous research. By surveying forage and predator populations in highly sophisticated ways, they concluded the walleye population was at an all time high while the forage base was at an all time low. That meant walleye growth rates would slow, but more important, high walleye numbers meant it would be difficult for smelt to recover. They also recognized that walleyes dominated the lake's predator population, though there were other species that also consumed smelt including white bass, northern pike, salmon, trout, catfish and smallmouth bass. While each of the other species enjoyed a small angling following, creel surveys indicated that about 95 percent of those who fished Lake Oahe, targeted walleyes. They'd also done enough research to know that of the other species in the reservoir, only Chinook salmon, trout, northern pike and white bass, could be termed significant predators of smelt...but not as significant as some believe...because there aren't as many of them. It was a problem of such magnitude that few managers had ever faced anything quite like it. But the biologists also knew something else. Doing nothing, letting nature take its course as was suggested by more than a few, could mean a recovery period as long as a quarter-century. While a complicated problem, there was only one solution. Reduce predation as quickly as possible.

They started by shutting down trout and salmon stocking. White bass rank second in importance to walleyes in terms of smelt predation, and while catfish and smallmouths probably eat a few smelt, they aren't considered significant smelt predators. But how do you entice fishermen to travel to South Dakota to fish white bass or catfish? That leaves northern pike and walleyes and biologists believe pike are probably eating many small walleyes, something that might normally be viewed as a problem, but not in this case. Their goal is to reduce the walleye population by 1.2 million fish. If pike help, that's good. They weighed all options. It's economically impossible to apply rotenone to a 300,000 acre, 260-mile-long reservoir, and even if smelt were available, it would take the biggest hatchery truck they had, making daily runs for nearly 15 years, to reach the population levels of the smelt before the runoff occurred. So, these underpaid and oft-criticized fisheries biologists developed a plan.

They substantially reduced the cost of resident and non-resident licenses on Lake Oahe to encourage anglers to participate in the harvest. They set liberal limits...14 walleyes daily, 10 of which must be under 14 inches and only one fish over 18-inches. The slots, if you want to call them that, weren't necessary. Frankly, they were the result of public input.

Creel surveys indicate the plan is working well and Oahe's fishing pressure has jumped dramatically. You'd expect resorts and fishing guides, direct beneficiaries of the special regulations, to be ecstatic. Guess again. Many are whining, claiming the fisheries policies are threatening the future of the fishery. Not surprisingly, few of the complainers have ever looked at the research data. The few that have, don't believe it. Go figure. Why would a young person want to become a fisheries biologist?

I saw a similar situation when the US Forest Service, after several years of research, wanted to change the management of the National Grasslands in the Dakotas, Nebraska and Wyoming. Their proposed management would have resulted in curbing grazing, though not significantly, something most prudent observers would consider a sensible approach. After all, most land health problems were related to overgrazing. The public land grazers, who maintain a competitive advantage over other ranchers because they lease grazing rights at bargain rates, screamed bloody murder and made outrageous claims that couldn't withstand scrutiny. They'd go broke, they said, though an almost identical grazing cutback a few years earlier on the Fort Pierre National Grasslands didn't send any permit-holders into the poor house. In fact, I'm not sure a healthier piece of prairie exists anywhere on the continent. Ask anyone who's hunted prairie grouse on that 116,000-acre chunk of what South Dakota once looked like. But, on the grazers went with their dire predictions of disaster. Not surprisingly, the media accepted everything grazers uttered, never once checking for accuracy. In North Dakota, the entire congressional delegation came down in favor of the grazers. Not once were they challenged in the media. I once asked Larry Dawson, who was charged with the management of the Dakota Prairie grassland office in Bismarck, why he didn't respond to some of the ludicrous charges made by the grazers and he answered, "We're constrained by truth and the truth isn't as sensational.as the charges."

Why would a young person aspire to be a range scientist?

When a coalition of farmers led by the Farm Bureau, Corn and Soybean growers pressured South Dakota's NRCS State Conservationist to lower wetland delineation standards in South Dakota, biologists were silent. When I pressed some of them to go public with the same concerns they offered in private, I was told that they couldn't because the political reins had been pulled on them. That's part of the reality of natural resource work. On major issues, wildlife managers are often politically silenced.

Why would an idealistic young person who feels wetlands have value, want to become a wetland or waterfowl biologist?

But you wouldn't think that such curbs would be placed on those who teach the profession. After all, academic freedom is one of those things that everyone supports.

I know a college professor, who in his first year at a major land grant college where he taught wildlife management, testified in favor of retaining wetlands, doing so at the request of a Presidential Task Force. He was too new to realize that saying wetlands had value was considered by some in agriculture, to be an unpardonable offense. The news of his testimony traveled back to his University faster than he did. He was summoned into the office of the University President, who told him in no uncertain terms that if he wished to become a tenured professor, he'd have to apologize to a group of ag leaders and retract his testimony. That's how academic freedom is conducted at this land grant college. The term can now be linked with such oxymoronic gems as military intelligence and airline food.

I've a friend who oversees wetlands in an area where much drainage has occurred. He's a first rate public servant who fights hard for wetlands and farmers. Yet, a mutual hunting acquaintance told me that if that biologist were to knock on a farm door in that area to obtain permission to hunt, he'd not only be denied but would undergo rude treatment. That's the price of doing a good job. Nor is this an unusual incident. In a recent issue of Fly Rod & Reel, Ted Williams wrote of the ostracism of Forest Service employees in the Wise Use Movement-infested community of Elko, NV. But, you don't have to go clear to Nevada to find such things. In western North Dakota, Forest Service employees found prairie dogs in their mailboxes. One was warned to watch his back and stay away from dark alleys. The bashing of federal resource workers has become a major sport for some, and a practice not limited to the Wise Use west. Sadly, it's even encouraged by some elected officials.

One of the biggest frustrationa most biologists deal with is bureaucracy and political interference. I think about that…everytime I hear someone tout "local control," as the way to manage resources. Those I know who have moved from state to federal natural resource management positions make a bit more money but getting anything done is more difficult because the layers of bureaucracy are more deeply entrenched. Some of them spend time drafting letters for Senators and Congressmen to respond to people who are complaining about the way they do their jobs.

I remember an old Fish & Wildlife Service biologist nearing retirement who talked about what the system does to bright young people.

"You start out idealistic," he said. "Then you run nto reality. If you move up within your agency, you leave field work and take a desk at a regional headquarters. Spend enough time there shuffling paper away from the field, and after a while, you can transfer to any other department...commerce or transportation...and the job's the same."

Doesn't the care and management of finite resources deserve more than that?

So, why not bypass the bureaucracy of government and go to work for a non-profit conservation organization? Some of them do accomplish something on behalf of resources. But some are so involved in fund raising that meaningful habitat work is relegated to the back burner. Worse, once entrenched in a non-profit, the formerly idealistic biologist realizes there's nowhere else to go. There's often a company line to be toed and in some non-profits, free-thinking has gone the way of the dinosaur.

In spite of all of this, there are still young people entering fish and wildlife management and most will become disillusioned within a few years. Many of the brightest will move into other fields. Most will adapt and accept reality.

But there's still a glimmer of hope for those who care about wild places and wild things. Out of this year's crop, there'll be a few who will learn how to play the bureaucracy. Some will figure out how to turn politicians into allies. Together, they'll find ways to get the right things done by figuring ways around the system. They'll walk the edge, frequently cross the line and continually flirt with dismissal. They make up the mere handful of movers and shakers who make this whole thing work...in spite of the roadblocks.

(Editor's Note - I spoke at the National Conservation LEadership Training Center in West Virginia a year ago, and was told that many new biologists who attend sessions there are shocked to learn the Fish *& Wildlife Service manages waterfowl and is pro-hunting)

[jay83196]

Interesting read, thanks..